Among the major factors contributing to the puzzling features found in the early post-Amarna period deposits in the Royal Valley were the unexpected deaths of Smenkhkare, Tutankhamen, and Ay after only relatively short periods upon the throne. None of these kings reigned long enough to have had sufficient time for the preparation of traditional royal tombs or the completion of finished funerary ensembles, and so the frequent reuse and modification of burial equipment undoubtedly occurred. This procedure entailed reentering original burials, moving grave goods to transitional locations selected for convenience, and refurbishing items (such as the KV 55 coffin, originally designed for a female) in ways that made them reusable in other interments but very bewildering to Egyptologists.
The following reconstruction of events in KV 55 focuses on the reuse of some of Smenkhkare's grave goods in Tutankhamen's tomb. Any account of KV 55, the final resting place of the mummy which is most probably Smenkhkare's, should offer some explanation of how grave goods belonging to this mummy ended up in KV 62. Rex Engelbach (ASAE 40 [1940], 137f.) argued that some of Tutankhamen's inscribed mummy bands, his four canopic coffins, and his third shrine were all originally designed for Smenkhkare. Tutankhamen's second coffin is seen by Dodson and Ikram as also deriving from Smenkhkare's funerary ensemble because it differs stylistically from his outer and innermost coffins. (MiAE, 214. See also Partridge, KMT [8:1], 66; and Vandersleyen, AT, 74.) W. McLeod, in his study of the archery equipment from KV 62, attributes original ownership of some of Tutankhamen's bows to Smenkhkare (CBTT, 11, n. 1 and no. 4), and Reeves supplies a list of other KV 62 objects (including various boxes, sequins, a scarab chain, a shawl, and decorative bangles) that were once the possessions of Smenkhkare (CT, 168-169). The usage of these objects in KV 62 indicates that the tomb of Smenkhkare had been utilized as a source of materials with which to augment Tutankhamen's own funerary furnishings, which may have been incomplete at the time of the young ruler's premature death. Any disturbance of Smenkhkare's original burial should have a significant bearing upon reconstructions of events in KV 55, the tomb in which his mummy was finally discovered.
Strangely, in spite of its almost unanimous identification as Smenkhkare, the implications of the connection between the KV 55 mummy and the KV 62 Smenkhkare objects have never been explored. These objects have been overlooked as possible clues to events in nearby KV 55. They were described as "heirlooms" by Carter, and Reeves discerns in this assemblage an additional category which he only defines as unused "surplus funerary equipment" that had been stored away for future use (CT, 168-169; DRN, 49.) But actual evidence is lacking to prove that these funerary furnishings were never utilized by their original owner. There seem to be no practical reasons why these items, some of them lavish and costly, should not have been used in Smenkhkare's burial, nor were there any apparent taboos in the ancient Egyptian religion prohibiting the reuse of objects which had actually been used in earlier interments. Notable examples of Egyptian monarchs appropriating the used grave goods of previous rulers can be cited. Pinudjem I reused the coffins in which Tuthmosis I had been buried (MiAE, 230) and Psusennes appropriated Merenptah's inner sarcophagi for use in his own burial. (MiAE, 262.) It appears that Carter's original designation of the Smenkhkare KV 62 grave goods as "heirlooms" has influenced all subsequent discussions of these objects, and it is usually taken as axiomatic that they were never employed by Smenkhkare. However, this accepted premise lacks supportive empirical evidence and may be easily challenged.
Tutankhamen's second coffin, as we have seen above, is attributed by Dodson and Ikram to Smenkhkare. Their explanation for why this expensive and exceptionally fine piece of funerary equipment was supposedly never utilized by its original owner requires some juggling with the dates normally attributed to Smenkhkare's brief reign. Dodson and Ikram argue that Smenkhkare, the co-regent of Akhenaten, was not very devout in his Atenist beliefs, and had this coffin made as part of his plan to be buried at Thebes in a non-Atenist fashion. They then argue that Smenkhkare died before Akhenaten, and postulate that the older king had his younger co-ruler interred in full Atenist style within the coffin eventually found in KV 55. Smenkhkare's opulent unused coffin was stored away, and eventually inherited by his younger brother, Tutankhamen (MiAE, 214.) This argument seems overly contrived, and employs a dating for the death of Smenkhkare that is not generally accepted. Most historians agree that Smenkhkare survived the heretical sun king and ruled independently for perhaps as many as three years (e.g. Murnane's chronology in Penguin Guide to Ancient Egypt [1983], and Baines & Málek's chronology in Ancient Egypt [1984.])
A less complicated solution to the problem of the KV 62 Smenkhkare coffin would propose that Smenkhkare had actually been buried in it. The coffin, which measures just over two meters in length (ToT, 249, pl. LXVIII) could have once easily contained the KV 55 coffin, which Daressy measured as 1.75 meters in length (ToQT, 16, no. 4.) Its colorful inlaid rishi design is quite similar to that appearing on the KV 55 coffin, and the two--in spite of the differences in wig style, and the fact that they were made for two different people, one of them being the female Kiya--would have complimented each other in an aesthetically pleasing fashion. Smenkhkare's transitionalist political/religious stance would have enabled him to accept burial in an outer coffin incorporating religious motifs that had been rejected by the earlier, more fundamentalist version of the Atenist faith. A need to reuse this coffin and some of Smenkhkare's other funerary equipment arose when Tutankhamen died, probably prior to the completion of the young ruler's funerary ensemble. It seems reasonable to date a proposed reentry of Smenkhkare's original tomb, and the subsequent removal of his mummy and burial equipment into KV 55, to this time.
Such an action could only have occurred under the direct orders of Ay, a ruler normally not given a part in the currently-accepted KV 55 reconstructions. Ay could have taken advantage of the reopening of Smenkhkare's tomb to conduct a general round-up of grave goods from other Amarna royal burials. A general salvaging operation of this sort perhaps explains the presence of some of Tiye's burial equipment and Akhenaten's magical "bricks" in KV 55. Ay's men, possibly finding the sun king's tomb in shambles in the wake of reprisals by the Amen priesthood, would have gathered up the few undamaged items that remained, including the magical "bricks" (which may have had their amuletic figures still in place at this time.) As part of Ay's general dismantling of the Amarna period royal burials, Smenkhkare's mummy bands, outer coffin, canopic "coffinettes," and other objects, were appropriated for reuse in KV 62, and his inner coffin and mummy were left in KV 55 with Tiye's deposit and the meager remnants of Akhenaten's burial.
Numerous clay seal impressions were found in KV 55, five of which bore the prenomen of Tutankhamen (cf. Ayrton, ToQT, 10; DRN, 44, n. 160, and pl. II, no. 8, 10, 12-14. ) Reeves and Aldred both assume that these seal impressions indicate that Tutankhamen, sometime during his short tenure on the throne, had employed KV 55 as a cache for the reburial of some of his relatives. However, persuasive evidence found in KV 62 indicates that the KV 55 deposit should be dated later, to the time of Tutankhamen's burial. Reeves notes that four of the KV 55 clay seal impressions were made by the same seal ring used to make ten type "N" seal impressions in KV 62 (DRN, 44, n. 161; 64, 66, item N. Compare with seal impression from KV 55, CT, 20.) Reeves, however, dates the employment of the type "N" seal ring used on objects in Tutankhamen's tomb to a time preceding the boy king's death. He bases this dating on the fact that two of the type "N" seal impressions were found in KV 62 in conjunction with type "M" seal impressions which he argues would not have been used after Tutankhamen had died. However, Reeves' opinion that the type "M" seal would not be employed after Tutankhamen's death is contradicted by the fact that a seal impression of very similar appearance was found in an undoubtedly funereal context in KV Pit 54, along with refuse material from the boy king's mummification and funerary banquet. (Click here for a drawing of the Pit 54 seal impression, from CT, 39.) The iconography of the type "M" seal supplies further evidence that it possessed a funerary significance: its depiction of the gods Re and Osiris facing each other is a standard motif in Egyptian funerary texts and signifies the point in the nightly solar journey through the Underworld when the sun god meets and unites with the ruler of the dead. (HE, 119ff. See especially p. 121, where Hornung gives an illustration of this motif from Ani's Book of the Dead.) The combined Re-Osiris imagery provides a metaphor for the death of the Pharaoh and his identification with Osiris, and the appearance of Tutankhamen's prenomen between these two deities on the seal impression would seem to indicate that the young king had died. The type "N" seal also seems to derive from a funerary context. Its usage of the figure of a lion subduing a captive human is similar to the Anubis-over-nine-captives motif used on the Royal Necropolis seal, and its employment of the crocodile image suggests a kinship with symbolism appearing in the Litany of Re (HE, 76, 95, pl. 57), a funerary text used to decorate the walls of many royal tombs in the Valley of the Kings. In view of the obvious funerary connotations possessed by these seals, the most likely significance of identical type "N" seal impressions in KV 55 and KV 62 is that activities took place concurrently in both tombs during the preparation of Tutankhamen's burial.
The remaining fifth seal impression of Tutankhamen found in KV 55 could have been associated with Smenkhkare's original interment, attached to a funerary gift given to him by his younger brother. We know that participation in the deceased king's funeral was an integral part of the rituals designed to legitimize the succeeding king's claim to the throne (cf. Frankfort, KG, 110-122.) Tutankhamen, although only a child, would have played a major role in Smenkhkare's funeral, and it is conceivable that some objects buried with the deceased ruler would bear the name of his successor. Such an object could have been moved into KV 55, along with the coffins and mummy of Smenkhkare, at the time of Tutankhamen's death, when a need arose to reuse some of Smenkhkare's funerary goods. A combination of rough handling and water damage could have caused the seal to drop off the object to which it had been attached, thereby obscuring its original significance.
KV 55 might not even have been slated for use as a cache, at least not in the same sense that DB 320 and KV 35 were used (i.e. as a place for an official "repetition of burial," or whm krs.) The tomb could have been primarily a work station established by Ay to recycle grave goods for use in Tutankhamen's burial, a procedure that would have been greatly facilitated by its close proximity to KV 62. Smenkhkare's appropriated grave goods had to be refurbished at some location within practical traveling distance from Tutankhamen's place of burial. Near-by KV 55, the tomb in which Smenkhkare's mummy was eventually found, would have provided a very convenient spot for this type of operation. The presence of Tiye's funerary equipment in KV 55 might merely indicate that some of her grave goods were also targeted for recycling, and not that the tomb had been selected as the spot for her official reburial. It is quite conceivable that her mummy had never been present in KV 55 at any time. Aldred's belief that Tiye's pall and wooden shrine had actually been reconstructed over her coffin in KV 55 (AKoE, 206ff.) is based on the very tenuous evidence that a single rosette, similar to the ones found on Tutankhamen's pall, was discovered in the tomb. Assuming that this rosette actually came from a pall, its discovery in KV 55 indicates only that a pall had been present in the burial chamber at some time, and does not necessarily demonstrate that the pall had been put in place over a coffin within a reassembled shrine. It is tempting to wonder what a close comparison of the KV 55 rosette with those found in KV 62 might reveal. Such an examination might discover some interesting facts about the source of Tutankhamen's pall.
The death of Ay only a few years after Tutankhamen's interment may explain why Smenkhkare's coffin and mummy were abandoned in KV 55. Any plans which Ay may have entertained concerning a more appropriate reburial for Smenkhkare would have died with him, since Horemheb, the succeeding monarch, would have shown little interest in the fate of the ephemeral Amarna ruler's remains.

Smenkhkare's Original Burial?
Although nothing conclusive can be stated at this time about Smenkhkare's original place of burial, some tentative speculations may be ventured. As Akhenaten's co-regent, Smenkhkare most probably had begun a tomb at the new royal necropolis at Akhetaten. His co-regency was brief, and his tomb at the Amarna capital was most likely abandoned in favor of one at a Theban location, especially in view of Smenkhkare's position of appeasement toward the reinstated Amen cult. He may have taken over WV 25, the Theban tomb begun by Amenhotep IV, and left unfinished by this ruler after his name change and move to Akhetaten. (For identifications of this tomb as Amenhotep IV-Akhenaten's, see Elizabeth Thomas [RNT, 83], John Romer [TVK, 59], and C. N. Reeves [DRN, 40-42; AEFP, 127]). In a 1979 report of his excavations in WV 25 (ASAE 63 [1979], 164ff.), Otto Schaden recorded finding fragmentary remains of traditionally royal funerary objects (small parts of a flail made of wood, fragments of royal ureaus serpents and guardian statues) which dated to a time earlier than the eight 22'nd Dynasty intrusive burials found in the tomb by Belzoni in 1817. (The Theban Mapping Project website dates these objects to the 18'th Dynasty, thereby strengthening their possible connection to Smenkhkare.) These could indicate that the tomb had once contained a royal burial. The abandoned tomb of his deceased senior co-ruler would have provided Smenkhkare with a convenient burial option, already partly constructed deep in the Theban heartland of the Amen cult. Perhaps the fragments of royal funerary equipment found by Schaden in WV 25 originally belonged to Smenkhkare, and represent objects that were left behind, for reasons unknown, by those who conducted Ay's postulated Amarna grave goods recycling campaign.

The site I posted in another thread has readings, or if you prefer, transcripts from four different people in ancient Egypt--including Kiya's instriptions from her coffins. I assume that is the love poem you are talking about. If it is not, just being able to hear the translations is very exciting--I really recommend this site...

Kiya would have given her life for AKhenaten if we believe her love poem to him,

Sekhmet, could you please send me that love poem? I dont think I know it and I do love my ancient Egyptian love poetry. lol

Here you go Si-Amun, Pharaoh Kel, it is from the footboard of Kiya's coffin. Taken from Akhenaten King of Egypt by Cyril Alderd, pg.247.

"May, I breathe the sweet air that issues from thy mouth. May I behold thy beauty everyday-that is my prayer. May I hear thy sweet voice in the North Wind. May my body grow vigorous with life through thy love. Mayest thou give me thy two hands bearing thy sustenance, and I receive and live by it/ Mayest thou ever call upon my name and it shall not fail on thy lips."

I'm still convinced that it's Smenkhare. KV-55 was, and remains, the sloppiest job of archaeological investigation in the history of the Valley of the Kings. There are still as many theories as there are so-called experts on the tomb. I remember, years ago, putting together a bibliography of source material on the subject, and giving it the title: "Hot Time in the Old Tomb Tonight."

So the question remains...if it's Smenkhare, then what happened to Akhenaten?

After reading various reports one on the subject, I have to agree with you, Niankhhkhnum. I think it must be Smenkhare.
As to the mummy of Akhenaten, I really don't expect it to ever show up--I think it was probably destroyed in ancient times, when the royal tomb at Aketaten was robbed. The tomb shows, not only the effects of the robbery, but an obvious attempt to deface and stamp out Akhenaten's memory. And to do this, the main focus would have been to deny him any afterlife--destroy the mummy.

I have wondered this in a separate thread, but weren't/aren't there plans afoot for up-to-date DNA testing on the various extant remains of this whole putative family in order to, finally, establish who is who (or not, as the case may be)?? Where does the investigation stand at the moment, forensically speaking? And by the way, did anyone else happen to see last week's installment of "Digging for the Truth"? At one point, they were in the Cairo Museum, and showed all the royal mummies in their temporary coffins, stacked like cordwood at the bottom of some stairs. After sorting through a couple of them, Dr. Nasri Iskander found what he was looking for: the occupant of KV55! He actually picked up the skull (the greater part of the skeleton was also to be seen) and held it up for the cameras!! I just about fainted dead away...

The mummies are stacked up in the stairway right now for a reason, Niankhknum. The Museum is having state-of-the-art humidity controlled cases made, to help preserve and protect the royal mummies.
The handling of the royal mummies is a very touchie (no pun intended!) subject. Many feel that the mummies should not even be on exhibit. In fact, when Sadat was president, he had the museum take the mummies away from public viewing. There are those people who still think that is the correct position to hold. Hawass has said that, even though they will be on public view, the highth of discretion will be used, modesty will be observed to the maximum, and only a limited number of tourists will be allowed to view them at a time.
The handling of the KV55 skull was indiscreet. But I'm sure Dr. Iskander has handled many other delicate historical objects, and is quite aware of the easily-damaged condition of those objects.
The last I heard, the remains had been 99.9% shown to be those of Smenkhre. This is taken from a recent article in KMT:
KV55 and its identification with Smenkhkare being privy to some recent information which is widely known in the international Egyptological community, but which cannot be publically admitted to due to an unfortunate set of circumstances involving museum politics and a sensitive diplomatic situation. Simply enough, the reconstructed trough (container) of the KV55 coffin has been found to exist outside Egypt [visitors to the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, will recall that it isn't on display there] and its interior - on the private report to this editor of several Egyptologists who have personally seen it or, in one case, photos of it -contains an inscribed band of gold foil [missed by Maspero et al., having been crushed into a ball that the excavators did not unwad] which includes the indisputable nomen cartouche of... Smenkhkare! Since it would thus seem pretty evident that the coffin had at some point been intended for Smenkhkare - and inasmuch as it was altered from a royal female's coffin to one appropriate for a king- it is a fair leap of faith to presume that its last occupant was none other than Smenkhkare. This of course doesn't answer the nagging question of whether or not that individual was male or female, for those stubbornly holding out for a "Smenkhkare is Nefertiti" identification.

Hopefully the circumstances surrounding the present possession of the KV55 coffin trough, and its ultimate appropriate return to the Egyptian Museum, will be resolved one of these very first years, and the question of the ownership of the so-called "Amarna Cache" can be made a matter of the scholarly record.

Thanks for your reply, Osiris II. Sorry if I was unclear: the intent of my post was not to criticize. I understood the reason for the mummies being stacked up and the transfer to the new room...I was just extremely surprised to see that the occupant of KV55 was actually to be part of the exhibit....the reason being that the skull and remaining bones have been virtually unseen and unavailable for so many years that they had almost passed into the realm of mythology. So to actually see them on TV with the skull held up for the camera close-up was a real shock!

In 1964 in the ancient necropolis of Saqqara, Egyptian archaeologist Ahmed Moussa discovered
a series of tombs with rock-cut passages in the escarpment facing the causeway that lead to the pyramid of Unas.

Soon after the Chief Inspector Mounir Basta reported crawling on his hands and knees through the passages, entering one of the Old Kingdom tombs.

He was impressed with its unique scenes of two men in intimate embrace, something he had never seen before in all the Saqqara tombs.

Meanwhile archaeologists working on the restoration of the causeway of Unas discovered that some of the stone blocks that had been used to build the causeway had been appropriated in ancient times from the mastaba that had originally served as the entrance to this newly discovered tomb. The archaeologists reconstructed the mastaba using the inscribed blocks found in the substructure of the causeway.

It was revealed that this unique tomb had been built for two men to cohabit and that both shared identical titles in the palace of King Niuserre of the Fifth Dynasty: "OVERSEER OF THE MANICURISTS IN THE PALACE OF THE KING."

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum